Protesting deletions on the thread about trans sex offender

But I'm cynical.

MNHQ are hardly going to come out say 'we realise we massively pissed off our main demographic, we won't do it again or it could affect our profits' are they?

But I really do think they will be much more careful about the whole 'transphobia' stuff now. Real women are their main demographic, after all.

It is astonishing to me how womens voices are silenced on this on Mumsnet, and how popular opinion is allowed to flourish at the expense of facts.

Sorry HQ - we are still not clear. Are we going to be deleted and threatened with suspension if we state the entirely accurate facts that you can't change sex and you there's no evidence for being "psychologically female" or female brains?

Will you also delete people who say there's no evidence for God/gods, no evidence for ghosts, woo, homeopathy and other delusional thinking?

Trans threads bring out the most horrible and abusive individual's on both sides of the argument.

I wish mumsnet was a lot stricter in enforcing their rules on personal abuse. As threads where people have strong opinions turn quickly into a slanging match full of nasty put downs and insults - ruining any chance of an interesting and informative debate on an issue.

Thank you very much Rebecca

It's better than nothing, right?

Although given the deletions I think the rules regarding what we can say about trans should be clearer

I do understand mnhq's reluctance here - but surely they can see a difference between stating it is impossible to change sex on a trans support thread, or even a general thread, and stating it in regards to a sex offender who has gotten away with child abuse.

I hate the way any comment on the matter is being hijacked with 'not all trans' and seen as a comment on trans people in general rather than how it was clearly bloody meant.

Can't someone start a transnet?

But I think if that one has remained deleted it needs explaining.

Biologically, as I understand it, one's sex is determined by one's chromosones. So in order to actually change one's sex, one would have to change one's chromosones. Can I just clarify, Rebecca - is MNHQ therefore saying that this is possible? Because if so, that's a massive scientific leap forward that I've missed.

So no further comment from MNHQ then

It's a fascinating subject and a very accessible book, Beyond. I would definitely recommend it. I have studied a bit of Chemistry and Organic Chemistry in my teens (what I guess would pass as GCSE subjects in the UK) but that was a few decades ago. I am now learning all about histones, DNA methylation, etc.

I would be happy to quote more about biological differences males and females of our species, if anyone is still not clear on the subject of sexual dimorphism.

Also adding my voice to this. I had no idea we were being deleted for speaking factually now - MNHQ, it is very important that we have a resoonse to this which clearly explains how it is transphobic to say that it is not possible to change one's biological sex, and why you feel it is not appropriate for us to debate the issues surrounding this without fear of being silenced.

Cote, that sounds like a fascinating book, I might have a look for it.

I've quoted the utterly disgusting and despicably transphobic Grays Anatomy before, no one clarified that either!!

cote biology is so essentialist and exclusionary

Adding my voice to those above.

I am reading a book called The Epigenetics Revolution at the moment. It is mostly at cellular and even molecular level, but this bit explains the sexes:

"At a purely biological, and especially an anatomical level, men and women are different. There are ongoing debates about whether or not certain behaviours, ranging from aggression to spatial processing, have a biological gender bias. But there are certain physical characteristics that are linked unequivocally to gender. One of the most fundamental differences is in the reproductive organs. Women have ovaries, men have testicles. Women have a vagina and a uterus, men have a penis."

I would like MNHQ to clarify whether they find this (non-fiction) book about epigenetic modifications on the DNA "transphobic".

Another excerpt from the next page:

"The notation to describe the normal chromosomal constitution of human makes is 46, XY. Females are described as 46, XX because they don't have a Y chromosome and instead have two XX chromosomes."

Again, is the author a vile transphobe? Or a scientist with knowledge of basic human biology?

HQ are you ever going to come back and explain your decisions?

We could avoid problems around the issue of pronouns and names when discussing convicted criminals in these cases by avoiding the use of pronouns or names, similar to the suggestion in the Hermione Weasley example above. For example, we could just repeatedly use the phrase 'sex offender convicted of using own penis to commit sexual crimes against a child'. Tedious to read , and to copy and paste, but factually correct and no danger of accusations of misgendering / 'deadnaming' .

Another one who is with the OP (and others) 100% on this.

I have been educated on the whole trans thing on MN and feel it is an island in a sea of stupidity (where Caitlyn Jenner can win Woman of the Year ffs).

I am not cis, I am a woman. Caitlyn Jenner is not a woman, she is a transwoman. A man with a penis is a man. That is a fact.

And anyone who is bored with this, stop reading. I don't read threads on the soaps because they are boring.

I doubt it, Mephisto.

At least as long as dictionaries continue to define Woman as Adult human female and Female as Of the sex that can bear young or make eggs,